building 52 overview former anaconda wire and cable

AAtlantictlanticRRichfieldichfieldCCompanyompanyA BP affiliated company

Building 52 OverviewFormer Anaconda Wire and Cable Company

March 5, 2013


2

Agenda

• History

• Regulatory Requirements

• PCB Data

• Condition

• Cost Estimate to Mothball for 8 Years

• Reuse vs. Demolition

• Feb 24th Village Questions

• AR Position

• Discussion


3

History

1928 - Anaconda Wire and Cable purchased the site

• To improve shipboard safety during WWII, the U.S. Navy awarded contracts to Anaconda to manufacture cable impregnated with PCB to enhance its water-resistant and flame-retardant properties

1975 - Plant closed

1977 - AR is the new owner as part of its purchase of Anaconda

1978 - Sold to unrelated parties

1998 - Reacquired by AR to manage property liabilities


4

History October 1945

B52

PCB Saturant Prep Area


5

Regulatory Requirements

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Future reuse will require abatement of porous surfaces (e.g. brick and concrete) and provision for future removal.

• New York State DEC (Record of Decision)The ROD defines the criteria for soil removal and the minimum cover system


6

PCB Data

= Exceeds criteria

Interior Wall and Slab Screening Samples


7

Soil PCBs under, outside and adjacent to the building

• Exceeds DEC criteria– ROD requires outfall exploration (historic trench & drain network)

PCB Data


8

Condition

• Roof

• Monitors

• Walls & columns


9

Condition


10

Cost Estimate to Mothball for 8 Years

Scope Item Cost ($ million)1. Foundation Testing $0.852. Planning $0.403. Mobilization/Demobilization $0.154. PCB and Asbestos Abatement $1.255. Site Work $3.606. Annual maintenance (8 yrs) $0.40Total Estimated Cost $6.65 million

Scope and cost estimates are approximate and intended to provide the Village with strategic guidance information only. Actual scope and costs may vary.

As presented:


11

Reuse

• PCBs will remain in shallow soil under the building

• DEC remedy will be constrained adjacent to the building

• Extensive soil retention wall around the building

• Developer will need to restore the slab and brick after decontamination

• Compatibility of structure, foundations, drainage and site grading for future use is unknown

• Asset or hindrance to waterfront redevelopment is unknown


12

Demolition

• Remove roof, steel infrastructure, walls and portions of the slab

• Cleared path for better and safer access to complete delineation of the PCB impacts to the soil under the slab

• Impacts beneath the building slab will be addressed per DEC requirements

• Extent of remediation under the building may be greater than expected


13

Feb 24th Questions


14

Feb 24th Questions1. The estimate for mothballing the building should only include the

difference in cost between PCB and asbestos abatement for a building that is torn down vs. that for a building which is planned to be preserved.

AR response: Screening samples suggest the estimated incremental abatement cost is $0.5 million (vs. $1.3 million total), however the cost may increase once the full scope is known. The wall and floor screening samples indicate the need for extensive brick and slab abatement, the scope of which would be determined by additional sampling. Roof deck removal may also be necessary.

2. Is the cost to meet current code included?AR response: No. Occupancy requirements such as a monitored fire suppression system, noted by Fire Inspector Drumm, are not included.

3. Is the cost to rebuild the missing roof monitor included?AR response: No.


15

Feb 24th Questions

4. Why is a foundation/pile study part of the estimate? Also, please comment on the need for a retaining wall or shoring which was not included in the memo.

AR response: The cost of a simple screening of pile conditions and load testing was included to provide basic integrity information to the Village for their decision-making on the value of further investment in the building. Reportedly loads are carried by wood piles that may have degraded over time.

Follow-up testing, repairs and modifications for a specific future use are additional and were not included in the estimate.

Outside of the building, the site remedy includes removing impacted soil and installing substantial cover. Additional cost will be incurred for grading and drainage around the building that is difficult to estimate at this time.


16

5. Is the existing slab to remain? How would the required remediation under the slab be achieved? What will remain at the end of the clean-up?

AR response: Safety and foundation integrity concerns prohibit us from performing complete remediation below the slab while the building is standing.

Should the building remain, TSCA allows the PCBs to remain in place with a deed restriction protecting the interior impacted area as a no-dig zone until such time that the building is removed and the soils are accessible and can be removed safely without damaging the foundation.

Should the building be demolished, the slab would be removed where required for excavation in accordance with the ROD. The remaining slab likely would be broken up for proper drainage, and site cover installed.

Feb 24th Questions


17

5. (Continued) Shouldn’t the soil remediation cost included in the estimate only be the difference between remediation with demolition versus without?

AR response: Actually, the estimate doesn’t include soil remediation since those costs will be borne by AR. However, if the building remains but is demolished in the future, the process begins again and a cleanup will have to conducted.

Feb 24th Questions


18

Cost Estimate for Reuse in 8 Years

Scope Item Cost ($ million)1. Foundation Testing $0.852. Planning $0.403. Mobilization/Demobilization $0.154. PCB and Asbestos Abatement $0.505. Site Work $3.606. Annual maintenance (8 yrs) $0.407. Future remobilization to remediate soil +8. Grading and drainage +Total Estimated Cost >$5.90 millionScope and cost estimates are approximate and intended to provide the Village with strategic guidance information only. Actual scope and costs may vary.

Revised :


19

AR Position on Building 52

• AR’s primary concern is safety of the area surrounding the decaying building and restoration of its underlying land for future reuse.

• While understanding and respecting community interest in historic preservation of the waterfront, AR’s preference is to remove Building 52 to reduce a significant safety risk, terminate unproductive annual maintenance and, most importantly, to enhance the opportunity to deliver a safe and effective environmental cleanup of the site.


Discussion

building 52 overview former anaconda wire and cable

Documents